In addition, the city of Columbus, Ohio, decided that Darwin and Galileo were not important enough scientists to dedicate the month of science to them in the education system
A conservative Christian newspaper in the USA, the Christian Post reports that while hundreds of events will be held around the world to mark the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth on February 12, one Christian church will organize a convention centered around an attempt to disprove Darwin's theory of evolution.
The "Answers in Genesis" organization and the Creation Museum in Cincinnati will organize A creationist conference In order to defend the faith against a theory that the church considers to be against the Holy Scriptures. The title of the double meeting will be "Answers to Darwin" and it will take place during two entrances, one on the east coast and the other on the west coast, during which instruction will be given to Christians regarding evolution and creationism.
"Many Christians have been convinced by the claims of the academic elite that there is some validity to Darwin's beliefs regarding evolution and they are trying to find a compromise and adjustments between evolution and belief in creation." Says Ken Hamm, president of "Answers in the Book of Genesis" who will be the keynote speaker at both conferences.
"We want to help them understand that the theory of Darwinian evolution is wrong, and that it undermines the Christian faith and has caused social ills such as racism and abortion," he said.
By the way, Pope Benedict XVI will hold a gathering in Rome in March to commemorate the book Origin of the Species. The Catholic Church claims, in contrast to the American Protestants, that evolution fits what is written in the Bible.
And in the meantime, the Columbus, Ohio City Council, She decided Not to hold the month of science in the month of March in the education system to mark the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth and the 400th anniversary of Galileo's telescope observations that led to his understanding that the earth revolves around the sun. The creationists asked not to honor Darwin, and the formal argument of the decision was that it would not be appropriate to honor only two scientists and not others.
24 תגובות
Haifa University is also preparing for the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth.
Surprisingly, a book display is held throughout the month of February in the university library, on display is a selection of books about Darwin and his teachings from Cambridge University Press and from the library's collection.
sounds interesting…
Gad:
so you said
Now the question is why do you expect us to take an example from you.
Some people can't run fast. He says it but does not demand it from others.
There are those who cannot jump high - they do not demand it from others either.
So you cannot see how the phenomena of life can be reductively explained.
Happens!
Although you don't even bother to look for an explanation in the dualistic world - after all, in the "spiritual" world nothing requires an explanation - but this contradiction between the fact that you don't know how to explain it in place A and therefore you rule out place A and the fact that you also don't know how to explain it in place B but there You don't try at all and therefore you don't rule out place B - it doesn't bother you at all.
If you understand the contradiction, this will indicate that you have started to think logically and then maybe you will also start to get closer to understanding the matter.
The nature of consciousness is subjective, meaning it cannot be quantified. The nature of the chemical/electrical actions in the brain that they can be quantified. How is a consciousness effect that cannot be quantified from actions that are essentially quantifiable? As something that cannot be quantified take for example time. external time is quantifiable. But what about internal time? During anxiety, time seems to extend to infinity, and the opposite during immense joy. Is this phenomenon objectively explainable? Can it be measured? Is it a consequence of chemical interactions? The approach in science today is that this is only an unexplained phenomenon. It seems to me that there is no scientist in the world today who can scientifically show (and not just a result of faith in science) how this happens. In other words, I don't see how the whole phenomenon of life can be explained reductively, to a purely mechanistic explanation. In my opinion, I explain life in a dualistic way. Surely this dualism did not grow out of a mechanistic environment.
The creationists' claims always remind me of the claim that "an object heavier than air cannot take off".
"The biggest problem that Darwinist theory presents is that all aspects of man can be explained but through a mechanistic, objective description. In such a description there is no place for consciousness..."
what are you saying? Why do you think chemical/electrical actions in the brain are incapable of creating consciousness? What exactly is the problem with that? The more I look at the matter, I see no contradiction and no problem here. Why do you think that an immaterial "soul" that supposedly resides within us can better explain our consciousness? How is the soul better than the physical brain in creating consciousness?
The statistical problem is the core of the design theory. Just an illustrative example - creationists claim that the chance of a single functional protein being created is simply not possible during the existence of the entire universe. Minimal artificial life. Only then will they check what the chances are and how many proteins are required to create life.
You really don't have to get involved in this issue, as long as you give credit that whoever writes on this site understands the science and appreciates it and doesn't think that, like your New Age, it is another factor that can be taken into account and maybe not.
As for the subject of the soul, I suggest you read Michael Rothschild's article from a few days ago, How are you doing.
Consciousness is subjective because it is only in the head of the person. Man can think what he wants but it will not affect nature.
hello to my father,
The scientists claim that despite the small chance, evolution is still possible, and the creationists claim that the chance is too small. I do not get involved in such debates. In my opinion, the problem is much more fundamental. What is life? Can life be defined only in objective terms? Perhaps the body's biological processes can be explained using mechanistic/objective tools and calculations, but can the mental world, consciousness, be explained in this way? Consciousness in its essence is subjective. My question is, how is something subjective created from something that by definition is only objective - the blind forces of nature?
Laria, I don't have an agreement with Maariv.
Leged - I don't understand, is Amnon Yitzchak such a great expert in statistics that he managed to convince you that evolution has no statistical possibility? Strange, because experts who understand this know it's nonsense.
Avi. The interview with Micho Kaku from nrg was published Saturday in Maariv's hard copy.
Doron in:
Michu Kaku is not a prophet and neither are you.
You have already tried to sell us a fabricated connection and your lack of understanding of the present betrayed the lie you claim to the knowledge of the future.
In my opinion, most of the predictions you make in the name of Micho Kaku will not come true, but I'm not a prophet either.
Clarification according to Baaz:
Religion gives an answer to every question to which the scientist answers "I don't know."
Beaz didn't mean a "correct answer" but just an "answer" that most likely is wrong.
This is one of the ways in which religion damages a person's morality: it allows him to make - as if with confidence - false claims.
The scientists must take an active position.
Medical services will not be provided to those who think there was no evolution.
: )
If stupidity was a painful disease, all creationists would be in hospitals...
So maybe you should switch to a better system. It takes a while until you see the message and confirm it, after all you are not in front of the computer 24 hours a day, you should check how other sites solved this problem because nowhere else have I seen automatic censorship as sweeping as here, sometimes you want to respond immediately to an article or a comment Someone has registered and waiting for manual confirmation of the response spoils the whole timing.
So what will happen???? The Darwinists will never be 'jackals - healthy'?? And the creationists will never be 'bold - victorious' (Darwin)??
It's not me this time, it's the WordPress system. Don't worry, I approve any reasonable link, certainly to legitimate sites. The problem is that there is a flood of links to illegitimate sites - and none of you want to go to a site that has hostile code because I won't be able to check it.
Father, I haven't read the current article yet, I wanted to contact you on another subject, the automatic censorship that is activated on this site is really annoying and completely excessive, almost every time I try to give links in messages, to well-known and reliable sites like the Hebrew Wikipedia, or YouTube, the message is immediately censored and it is impossible to send her. Is it possible to deal with this very annoying topic for once? It doesn't make sense that you can't give links in the messages here, what era are we living in? The beginning of the Internet days? Haven't we made some progress?
I would appreciate it if you could help me get the copyright on this article.
What a wonderful world
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/55/ART1/846/379.html?hp=0&loc=5&tmp=7766
what a wonderful World
In the distant future we will be able to travel between universes, conduct time travel and meet intelligent extraterrestrials. fantasy? Not if you ask Prof. Michio Kaku, a world-renowned American-Japanese physicist. The days when scientists treated the idea of parallel universes as a field belonging to mystics are over, Kaku says and promises that soon it will be possible to significantly slow down the aging process and read the minds of others, even those of God
Father, you should bring the article to the website
Things are said there that we will definitely meet later
Doron.
This is the weak point where religions enter. Religion gives an answer to a person wherever he says - I don't know.
Since for many people "I don't know" is not an acceptable answer, God was invented to solve the ignorance.
That is, what science currently answers to the question of consciousness is "I don't know" and it is not acceptable to you.
Beyond the debate whether evolution is statistically possible. The biggest problem that Darwinian theory presents is that all aspects of man can be explained but through a mechanistic, objective description. In such a description there is no place for consciousness. Consciousness behaves subjectively. A mechanistic description of man allows only an objective explanation, or quantifiable phenomena. Consciousness cannot be quantified. Hence, the followers of evolution must deal with difficult problems - how does a subjective consciousness exist in a person if the person is but a result of mechanistic evolution. Answers that say that this is only an epiphenomenological phenomenon and that subjectivity is only a phenomenon that we will understand "in the future" is just evading the answer in my opinion.